DOCSLIB.ORG

Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Stratford Ranch Project, City of Perris, California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Stratford Ranch Project, City of Perris, California ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 25109 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 220 Murrieta, California 92562 Telephone: (619) 708-1649 Fax: (714) 409-3287 Stratford Ranch Investors, LLC May 29, 2012 3649 Mission Inn Avenue P/W 1204-05 Murrieta, CA 92562 Report No. 1204-05-B-2 Attention: Mr. John Abel Subject: Updated Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the Stratford Ranch Project, City of Perris, California References: Appendix A Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, presented herein are the results of Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.’s, (AGS’s) geotechnical investigation of the proposed Stratford Ranch Project, City of Perris, California. The purpose of this geotechnical study is to update previous geotechnical studies and to evaluate the proposed residential development relative to the near-site and on-site geologic and geotechnical conditions and provide conclusions and recommendation to aid in the construction of the project. A Composite Exhibit prepared by Keller Consulting, Inc. (KCI), at a scale of 1”=200’, was provided for use in preparing this updated preliminary geotechnical investigation. The plan is essentially a topographic map and design was not presented. The site plan is included in this document with the collected geologic and geotechnical data superimposed upon it. The information presented in the referenced documents and supplemented by this study provides the basis for this geotechnical review report. The geotechnical and geologic issues opined to be significant include: Unsuitable Soil Removal Recommendations: Based upon review of published geologic maps of the area, the referenced reports and this firm’s subsurface investigation, the majority of the subject development area is underlain by Modern Alluvium overlying Quaternary- aged Very Old Fan Deposits. The silty sands, silty clays and clayey silts of the Modern Alluvium and Very Old Fan Deposits exist in a damp to moist and loose to medium dense state at the locations explored. Within the proposed development area, unsuitable soils removals should include undocumented artificial fill materials, and the upper three to five feet of alluvial deposits. In order to mitigate the potential for differential settlement, over-excavation is recommended to provide a minimum of three feet of newly place engineered fill. This removal will provide a uniform bearing surface of materials with non-differential expansion/contraction and consolidation characteristics and limit the potential for differential dynamic and static settlement. Geologic Hazards: The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site has not been evaluated by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Mapping program. The County of Riverside has ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES (714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 850-3980 May 29, 2012 Page iii P/W 1204-5 Report No. 1204-05-B-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Geotechnical Study Limitations ...................................................................................... 2 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 2 3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 2 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ........................................................... 2 5.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGY ............................................................................................. 3 5.1. Geologic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 3 5.1.1. Literature Review.................................................................................................... 3 5.1.2. Aerial Photograph Review ...................................................................................... 3 5.1.3. Field Mapping ......................................................................................................... 3 5.2. Geologic and Geomorphic Setting .................................................................................. 3 5.3. Stratigraphy ..................................................................................................................... 4 5.3.1. Surficial Units ......................................................................................................... 4 5.3.1.1. Undocumented Artificial Fill (QafuR, QafuL and Qafu) ................................... 4 5.3.1.2. Modern Alluvium (Qal) ...................................................................................... 4 5.3.1.3. Very Old Fan Deposit (Qvof) ............................................................................. 4 5.4. Geologic Structure and Tectonic Setting ........................................................................ 4 5.4.1. Tectonic Setting and Regional Faulting .................................................................. 4 5.4.2. Local Faulting ......................................................................................................... 5 5.4.3. Geologic Structure .................................................................................................. 5 5.5. Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 5 5.6. Non-seismic Geologic Hazards....................................................................................... 5 5.6.1. Mass Wasting and Debris Flows............................................................................. 5 5.6.2. Flooding .................................................................................................................. 5 5.6.3. Subsidence and Ground Fissuring .......................................................................... 5 5.7. Seismic Hazards .............................................................................................................. 5 5.7.1. Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................. 6 5.7.2. Seismicity ................................................................................................................ 6 5.7.3. Liquefaction ............................................................................................................ 7 5.7.4. Seismically Induced Landsliding ............................................................................ 8 5.7.5. Earthquake Induced Flooding ................................................................................. 8 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING .................................................................................. 8 6.1. Material Properties .......................................................................................................... 8 6.1.1. Excavation Characteristics ...................................................................................... 8 6.1.2. Compressibility ....................................................................................................... 8 6.1.3. Collapse Potential/Hydro-Consolidation ................................................................ 8 6.1.4. Expansion Potential ................................................................................................ 9 6.1.5. Chemical and Resistivity Test Results .................................................................... 9 6.1.6. Earthwork Adjustments .......................................................................................... 9 6.1.7. Shear Strength ....................................................................................................... 10 6.1.8. Pavement Support Characteristics ........................................................................ 10 6.2. Analytical Methods ....................................................................................................... 10 6.2.1. Pavement Design .................................................................................................. 10 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. May 29, 2012 Page iv P/W 1204-5 Report No. 1204-05-B-2 6.2.2. Bearing Capacity and Lateral Pressure ................................................................. 10 7.0 Earthwork Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................... 11 7.1. Site Preparation and Removals/Overexcavation ........................................................... 11 7.1.1. Site Preparation ..................................................................................................... 11 7.1.2. Disturbed Soils ...................................................................................................... 11 7.1.3. Undocumented Artificial Fill ................................................................................ 11 7.1.4. Modern Alluvium.................................................................................................. 11 7.1.5. Very Old Fan Deposits.......................................................................................... 12 7.2. Subsurface Drainage ..................................................................................................... 12 7.3. Seepage ........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PDF Linkchapter
    Index (Italic page numbers indicate major references) Abalone Cove landslide, California, Badger Spring, Nevada, 92, 94 Black Dyke Formation, Nevada, 69, 179, 180, 181, 183 Badwater turtleback, California, 128, 70, 71 abatement districts, California, 180 132 Black Mountain Basalt, California, Abrigo Limestone, Arizona, 34 Bailey ash, California, 221, 223 135 Acropora, 7 Baked Mountain, Alaska, 430 Black Mountains, California, 121, Adams Argillite, Alaska, 459, 462 Baker’s Beach, California, 267, 268 122, 127, 128, 129 Adobe Range, Nevada, 91 Bald Peter, Oregon, 311 Black Point, California, 165 Adobe Valley, California, 163 Balloon thrust fault, Nevada, 71, 72 Black Prince Limestone, Arizona, 33 Airport Lake, California, 143 Banning fault, California, 191 Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, 451, Alabama Hills, California, 152, 154 Barrett Canyon, California, 202 454, 455 Alaska Range, Alaska, 442, 444, 445, Barrier, The, British Columbia, 403, Blackhawk Canyon, California, 109, 449, 451 405 111 Aldwell Formation, Washington, 380 Basin and Range Province, 29, 43, Blackhawk landslide, California, 109 algae 48, 51, 53, 73, 75, 77, 83, 121, Blackrock Point, Oregon, 295 Oahu, 6, 7, 8, 10 163 block slide, California, 201 Owens Lake, California, 150 Basin Range fault, California, 236 Blue Lake, Oregon, 329 Searles Valley, California, 142 Beacon Rock, Oregon, 324 Blue Mountains, Oregon, 318 Tatonduk River, Alaska, 459 Bear Meadow, Washington, 336 Blue Mountain unit, Washington, 380 Algodones dunes, California, 101 Bear Mountain fault zone, California,
    [Show full text]
  • October 3, 2018
    Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Draft Prepared by: October 2018 Table of Contents Chapter 2 Basin Setting .......................................................................................................2-2 Acronyms 2-3 2.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model ..........................................................................2-4 2.1.1 Useful Terminology ................................................................................................2-4 2.1.2 Regional Geologic and Structural Setting ..............................................................2-5 2.1.3 Geologic History ....................................................................................................2-5 2.1.4 Geologic Formations/Stratigraphy .........................................................................2-8 2.1.5 Faults and Structural Features ............................................................................. 2-17 2.1.6 Basin Boundaries ................................................................................................ 2-26 2.1.7 Principal Aquifers and Aquitards .......................................................................... 2-26 2.1.8 Natural Water Quality Characterization ................................................................ 2-32 2.1.9 Topography, Surface Water and Recharge .......................................................... 2-36 2.1.10 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Data Gaps .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – July 2017
    City of Santa Barbara Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – July 2017 City of Santa Barbara Annex to Santa Barbara County 2017 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Contents SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 PLAN PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY ................................................................... 4 SECTION 3 PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................. 6 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 8 Mitigation Advisory Committee (MAC) ................................................................................. 9 MAC Members ........................................................................................................................ 9 Overview of MAC Meetings ................................................................................................. 10 City Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ...................................................................... 11 SECTION 4 CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 14 Governance ........................................................................................................................... 14 Departmental Responsibilities, Plans, and Capabilities ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California
    An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D. STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2010 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any given purpose. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 Compilation and Interpretation by CHARLES W. JENNINGS and WILLIAM A. BRYANT Digital Preparation by Milind Patel, Ellen Sander, Jim Thompson, Barbra Wanish, and Milton Fonseca 2010 Suggested citation: Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California INTRODUCTION data for states adjacent to California (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). The The 2010 edition of the FAULT ACTIVTY MAP aligned seismicity and locations of Quaternary OF CALIFORNIA was prepared in recognition of the th volcanoes are not shown on the 2010 Fault Activity 150 Anniversary of the California Geological Map.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No
    U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report Award No. G12AP20066 Recipient: University of California at Santa Barbara Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Craig Nicholson1, Andreas Plesch2, John Shaw2 & Egill Hauksson3 1Marine Science Institute, UC Santa Barbara 2Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University 3Seismological Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Principal Investigator: Craig Nicholson Marine Science Institute, University of California MC 6150, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-6150 phone: 805-893-8384; fax: 805-893-8062; email: [email protected] 01 April 2012 - 31 March 2013 Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of the Interior, under USGS Award No. G12AP20066. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors, and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. 1 Mapping the 3D Geometry of Active Faults in Southern California Abstract Accurate assessment of the seismic hazard in southern California requires an accurate and complete description of the active faults in three dimensions. Dynamic rupture behavior, realistic rupture scenarios, fault segmentation, and the accurate prediction of fault interactions and strong ground motion all strongly depend on the location, sense of slip, and 3D geometry of these active fault surfaces. Comprehensive and improved catalogs of relocated earthquakes for southern California are now available for detailed analysis. These catalogs comprise over 500,000 revised earthquake hypocenters, and nearly 200,000 well-determined earthquake focal mechanisms since 1981. These extensive catalogs need to be carefully examined and analyzed, not only for the accuracy and resolution of the earthquake hypocenters, but also for kinematic consistency of the spatial pattern of fault slip and the orientation of 3D fault surfaces at seismogenic depths.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States
    Jump to Navigation Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States As of January 12, 2017, the USGS maintains a limited number of metadata fields that characterize the Quaternary faults and folds of the United States. For the most up-to-date information, please refer to the interactive fault map. Santa Ynez fault zone, Pacifico section (Class A) No. 87a Last Review Date: 2000-08-01 citation for this record: Treiman, J.A., compiler, 2000, Fault number 87a, Santa Ynez fault zone, Pacifico section, in Quaternary fault and fold database of the United States: U.S. Geological Survey website, https://earthquakes.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults, accessed 12/14/2020 03:14 PM. Synopsis General: Other than the basic geologic map location from Dibblee (1950 #5977; 1966 #5978) and a few other local studies, very little is known about most of this fault zone. Paleoseismic studies have been done in only two localities--the Alegria Canyon site along the Santa Ynez, South Branch section [87c] and the Rancho San Marcos site near the assigned section boundary between the Santa Ynez, Western section [87b] and Santa Ynez, Eastern sections [87d]. Although the latter study site, demonstrating Holocene displacement, is tentatively placed in the Santa Ynez, Eastern section [87d], the majority of this section (especially in Ventura County) is very poorly studied with respect to recency of activity. The South Branch is a little better known as a result of investigations in the late 1970's and early 1980's for a proposed Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility (Envicom, 1978 #5981; Yerkes and others, 1980 #5993; Rice and others, 1981 #5986) as well as an earlier study cited by Hart (1978 #5983).
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH Structural Modeling of the Western Transverse Ranges
    RESEARCH Structural modeling of the Western Transverse Ranges: An imbricated thrust ramp architecture Y. Levy 1,2 , T.K. Rockwell 1, J.H. Shaw 3, A. Plesch 3, N.W. Driscoll 2, and H. Perea 2,4 1DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES, SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, 5500 CAMPANILE DRIVE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92182, USA 2SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA–SAN DIEGO, 9500 GILMAN DRIVE, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037, USA 3DEPARTMENT OF EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCES, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, 20 OXFORD STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138, USA 4INSTITUT DE CIENCIES DEL MAR, CONSEJO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTIFICAS, PASSEIG MARITIM DE LA BARCELONETA, 37-49, 08003 B ARCELONA, SPAIN ABSTRACT Active fold-and-thrust belts can potentially accommodate large-magnitude earthquakes, so understanding the structure in such regions has both societal and scientic importance. Recent studies have provided evidence for large earthquakes in the Western Transverse Ranges of California, USA. However, the diverse set of conicting structural models for this region highlights the lack of understanding of the subsurface geometry of faults. A more robust structural model is required to assess the seismic hazard of the Western Transverse Ranges. Toward this goal, we developed a forward structural model using Trishear in MOVE ® to match the rst-order structure of the Western Transverse Ranges, as inferred from surface geology, subsurface well control, and seismic stratigraphy. We incorporated the full range of geologic observations, including vertical motions from uplifted uvial and marine terraces, as constraints on our kinematic forward modeling. Using fault-related folding methods, we predicted the geometry and sense of slip of the major faults at depth, and we used these structures to model the evolution of the Western Transverse Ranges since the late Pliocene.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanitory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California
    An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D. STATE GEOLOGIST Copyright © 2010 by the California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent of the California Geological Survey. The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any given purpose. An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California Scale 1:750,000 Compilation and Interpretation by CHARLES W. JENNINGS and WILLIAM A. BRYANT Digital Preparation by Milind Patel, Ellen Sander, Jim Thompson, Barbra Wanish, and Milton Fonseca 2010 Suggested citation: Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor LESTER A. SNOW, Secretary BRIDGETT LUTHER, Director JOHN G. PARRISH, Ph.D., State Geologist STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY An Explanatory Text to Accompany the Fault Activity Map of California INTRODUCTION data for states adjacent to California (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/). The The 2010 edition of the FAULT ACTIVTY MAP aligned seismicity and locations of Quaternary OF CALIFORNIA was prepared in recognition of the th volcanoes are not shown on the 2010 Fault Activity 150 Anniversary of the California Geological Map.
    [Show full text]
  • Final EIR 4.4 Geology and Soils
    Final EIR 4.4 Geology and Soils 4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section describes the potential geological resources impacts that could result from construction of the City Fire Station 10. 4.4.1 Existing Setting Goleta General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan Based on the Goleta General Plan/Local Land Use Plan, Safety Element (City of Goleta 2016), and the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (City of Goleta 2006), the Project site is not underlain by geologic hazards, including fault zones, compressible soils, landslides, or radon-emitting soils. Project Site Setting Regional The Project site is located in the western portion of the City of Goleta, which occupies a portion of the eight‐mile long and three‐mile wide, flat alluvial plain known as the Goleta Valley (City of Goleta 2006). The Goleta Valley is a broad, flat alluvial plain bordered on the south by bluffs along the Pacific coastline, and on the north by foothills and terraces of the Santa Ynez Mountain Range. The valley generally slopes gently toward the Goleta and Devereux sloughs. Project Site A Project-specific geotechnical investigation by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (2017, Appendix E) identified that the Project site is underlain by undocumented fill and Pleistocene-age marine terrace deposits, to a depth of 56 feet below ground surface. Approximately 5 feet of undocumented fill material, consisting primarily of silty sand with gravel, blankets the Project site. However, the fill may locally be as deep as 7 to 10 feet in the vicinity of former underground storage tanks associated with a former service station.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B—Geologic-Slip-Rate Data and Geologic Deformation Model
    Appendix B—Geologic-Slip-Rate Data and Geologic Deformation Model By Timothy E. Dawson,1 and Ray J. Weldon, II2 Introduction This report documents the development of the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, version 3, (UCERF3) geologic deformation model (referred hereafter as DM3.1). Although model DM3.1 can be viewed as an update to the UCERF2 deformation model (Wills and others, 2008), it also represents a departure from UCERF2 in terms of the approach used in the development and ultimate purpose. The UCERF2 deformation model was primarily a geological model but also informally incorporated geodetic observations designed to match the total plate rate as defined by the NUVEL-1A model of DeMets and others (1994), as well as specific regionally observed geodetic rates for a kinematically and internally consistent deformation model (Wills and others, 2008). Although this approach served UCERF2 well, it was recognized that the wealth of geodetic observations and geodesy-based modeling approaches were underutilized in UCERF2 and that geodesy-based deformation models represented an approach that could be applied in UCERF3 as an alternative, or in conjunction with, a geology- based deformation model. The current Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) decided to explore a range of different deformation models including several types of geodesy-based models, as well as a geologically based deformation model. However, because the UCERF2 deformation model integrated geologic and geodetic data with best-estimate rates developed through a consensus process over several WGCEPs (1995, 1999, 2002, 2008) and the National Seismic Hazard Map (NSHM) (for example, Petersen and others, 1996), it became clear that a simple update of the UCERF2 deformation model would not produce a model independent of the geodetic models.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report, July, 2000 Earthquake Hazard of the Santa Barbara Fold Belt, California NEHRP Award #99HQGR0081 SCEC Award #572726 E
    Final Report, July, 2000 Earthquake Hazard of the Santa Barbara Fold Belt, California NEHRP Award #99HQGR0081 SCEC Award #572726 E. A. Keller (PI) [email protected] L. D. Gurrola Institute for Crustal Studies UC Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California 93106 (805) 893-4207 GOLETA gment More Ranch se La vigia f La Mesa f SANTA ault ault BARBARA 47 +/- 0.5/ka Uplift rate = 1.9 m/ky N LEGEND Oxygen isotope stage 3 58 +/- 11 ka 70 +/- 2 ka (45 and 58 ka) Uplift rate = Uplift rate = 1.2 m/ky 1.3 m/ky Oxygen isotope stage 5 Anticlinal fold axis 0 2 km (85, 105, and 125 ka) Synclinal fold axis Research supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Interior, under USGS award 1434-HQ-GR-02978. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. government. Parts of this report are from papers and abstracts published as part of the work for the project, and parts are from the Ph.D. dissertation of Larry Gurrola, in preparation. This report is available online at http://www.geol.ucsb.edu/~keller/sbeqh.pdf TTAABBLLEE OOFF CCOONNTTEENNTTSS PP aa gg ee Technical Abstract 4 Non-Technical Abstract 6 1.0 Introduction 7 1.1 Objectives 8 1.2 Methods Of Study 8 2.0 Tectonic Setting of the Western Transverse Ranges 11 3.0 Tectonic Framework 12 4.0 Historic Seismicity 13 5.0 Stratigraphy 15 5.1 Pre-Quaternary Stratigraphy 15 5.2 Quaternary Stratigraphy 16 5.21 Santa Barbara Formation 16 5.22
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Fault Traces and Historical Earthquake Effects Near Los Alamos Valley, Santa Barbara County, California
    SURFACE FAULT TRACES AND HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS NEAR LOS ALAMOS VALLEY, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.D. Guptill, E.G. Heath, and G.E. Brogan Woodward-Clyde Consultants 4000 West Chapman Avenue Orange, California 92668 USGS CONTRACT NO. 14-08-0001-18255 Supported by the EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION PROGRAM OPEN-FILE NO. 81-271 U.S. Geological Survey OPEN FILE REPORT This report was prepared under contract to the U.S. Geological Survey and has not been reviewed for conformity with USGS editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the USGS. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. SURFACE FAULT TRACES AND HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS NEAR LOS ALAMOS VALLEY, SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By P. D. Guptill, E. G. Heath/ and G. E. Brogan Woodward-Clyde Consultants 4000 West Chapman Avenue Orange/ California 92668 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT November 1980 SPONSORED BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Contract No.: 14-08-0001-18255 Co-Principal Investigators: George E. Brogan Edward G. Heath Government Technical Officer Gordon W. Greene U.S. Geological Survey 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Effective Date of Contract: 20 June 1979 Contract Expiration Date: 19 October 1980 Amount of Contract: $38/574 Date: 5 November 1980 The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES, PLATES, AND TABLES ABSTRACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................
    [Show full text]